KABUL - A conference on reconciliation in Afghanistan demanded on Thursday that people involved in rights abuses in the countryâs two decades of war be removed from government and face prosecution.
Would seem to be rather sensible.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah however rejected suggestions there were human rights violators in official positions and said only the courts could decide who had been involved in past abuses.
There is a pressing need âto remove human rights abusers from positions of power,â said a statement issued at the end of the conference attended by about 200 people, including from the UN, rights groups and government officials. âThe removal of human rights violators from government and other official positions is regarded as a prerequisite to improving security conditions and creating an environment conducive to other transitional justice activities,â it said.
âParticipants also expressed a strong desire to see prosecutions of perpetrators.â
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
people involved in rights abuses in the countryâs two decades of war
Strange wording, this could be easily interpreted to mean either perps or victims.
Would anybody at all NOT qualify under this wording? Kinda leaves the country ungovernable with no qualified citizens to run for office.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2005 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
Arabs are looking more inward today, focusing on issues close to home and self-identifying more with their countries. And despite concerns with employment, most Arabs are quite optimistic about their future. These are some of the results of a new Zogby International poll conducted in the last half of October 2005.
Commissioned by Young Arab Leaders, a Dubai-based group, but supported, as well, by the Arab-American Institute, the poll surveyed 3,900 Arabs from Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Jordan.
The results demonstrate some real changes taking place in Arab opinion. For example, when asked what were the most important issues facing the region, the responses in rank order of importance were: Expanding employment opportunities, improving health care, combating corruption and nepotism, improving the educational system and fighting extremism and terrorism. The most notable change here was with regard to the importance given to âresolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.â In our 2002 poll, given the brutal repression of Palestinians that was gripping Arab public opinion, this issue ranked second in importance. Today, it is number seven.
Concerns about employment are far and away the number one concern in Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan, with substantial majorities saying prospects of finding a job are dim. As a result, majorities in those countries indicate that they would leave their homes and countries and move to another country to find employment. Only in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, were citizens optimistic about finding work and are, therefore, less inclined to want to leave to find work elsewhere.
Despite this concern, by a margin of more than two to one, most Arabs in all six countries now say that they are better off than their parents were and say they are quite positive about their future prospects. What this somewhat contradictory finding appears to indicate is that Arab opinion, despite current difficulties, remains hopeful that solutions can be found to remedy the present economic distress.
Maybe the most dramatic changes occurred with regard to how Arabs prefer to self-identify. In 2002 in most countries the preferred self-identification was either âbeing Arabâ or oneâs religion. Today, most Arabs indicate that they identify primarily with their country. This significant change, most likely the result of developments within each country, is important. Identification with oneâs country rather than the larger transnational identities offered, for example, of âArabâ and âIslam,â does not mean a rejection of either âArabnessâ or religion, but a realism and a self-confident pride that should allow governments and civil society institutions within each country the opportunity to mobilize citizens in solution-oriented efforts at improvement.
Another area where answers surprised some experts came in response to the question âHow acceptable is it for women to work outside the home?â In every country substantial majorities agreed that it was acceptable for women to work for any of the reasons given: âTo provide financial support for the family,â âto find a fulfilling career,â or simply âbecause she wants to work.â
What the results show is an Arab world in which citizens are taking a look at what needs to be done to improve their lives. It is important to note that this looking inwards coexists with the sense of satisfaction (most saying they are better off) and a sense of optimism (most saying they believe things will continue to improve). Arab opinion, in other words, is saying that it sees the problems that exists, wants them solved, and is hopeful that change will come.
What our poll also shows is that these views coexist in an environment where there is a diminishing belief in the âlikelihood of peaceâ and a hardening of negative attitudes toward American policies â especially toward Iraq and âUS treatment of Arabs and Muslims.â
The poll, therefore, helps to define an agenda both for countries in the region and US policymakers as well. As in our earlier polling, this survey establishes that as long as American policies are viewed negatively, it is difficult for the US to be an agent for change. The poll also helps focus on what are the real priorities that must be pursued: Employment, health care, corruption, education, and combating extremism.
This is what most Arabs want, and this is what they are looking to their governments to deliver, with or without the US, and regardless of whether or not peace is established soon in the broader region. I love the fact that Zogby will do anything he can to not give credit for this sudden change of Arab psyche to the US. Nope we've had nothing to do with it... it's all just a coincedance... move along now...
#1
Article: The poll, therefore, helps to define an agenda both for countries in the region and US policymakers as well. As in our earlier polling, this survey establishes that as long as American policies are viewed negatively, it is difficult for the US to be an agent for change. The poll also helps focus on what are the real priorities that must be pursued: Employment, health care, corruption, education, and combating extremism.
This is encouraging, as Muslims appear to figuring out (1) plausibly deniable mass killings carried out by terrorists supported by the Muslim public is dangerous to their personal health, (2) these mass killings serve only to enrage Uncle Sam, not cow him and (3) Democratic defeatism aside, Uncle Sam will do what it takes to kill as many terrorists as they send our way.
#2
The question the poll should have asked is: Do you want to have a purple finger?
Or: How come Iraqis get to vote and you don't?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/16/2005 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Zhang Fei, well put. The message seems to be sinking in that plausible deniability for the few extremists translates into plausible culpability for the Arab world in general.
The British government Thursday dropped a key part of the anti-terrorism legislation proposed after the deadly July 7 suicide bombings on London's transit system, abandoning its effort to let police shut down extremist mosques.
"Yasss. We're very content merely pulling an occasional handful of leaves from the tree of terrorism. Actually digging up the roots would get dirt all over the carpets."
The plan, introduced a month after four suspected suicide bombers killed 52 bus and Underground passengers,
... before the national attention span ran out...
had been criticized by police and religious organizations.
And now George Michael is engaged and that's ever so much more important...
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said in a written statement to the House of Commons that he was dropping the proposal "although we will keep the matter under review."
"Next time somebody blows up the transit system, by golly, they're really gonna get it!"
The proposal would have given police powers to temporarily close places of worship being used by extremists. The trustee or owner would then be served with an order to halt radical activity. The Home Office spokesman said 66 people and organizations had responded to a consultation on the proposal, and most were opposed.
Of course they're opposed! They're the ones that would have been closed down! Do we have any aspirin?
We're fresh out of aspirin, but I did find this Cluebat⢠in the closet...
The Association of Chief Police Officers also opposed the idea, saying it risked alienating ordinary Muslims and driving extremism underground.
"We much prefer to have the Bad Guyz out where we can see them, even if they're throwing things at us!"
"Have you considered putting them in jail?"
"Oh, that'd just drive the rest of them underground and we'd never catch them."
"But if you caught them, what would you do with them?"
"Well, we wouldn't put them in jail!"
The Rev. Graham Sparkes of the Baptist Union of Great Britain said Baptists had suffered persecution and imprisonment in the past in their efforts to "secure control over what was preached, where it could be preached, and who could preach."
I'm not aware of any transit systems ever blown up by Baptists. Did I miss something?
"We would be very sensitive toward any proposals that put these hard won freedoms under threat," Sparkes said in a statement to the government.
Don't preach jihad in your Baptistries and you'll be fine...
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, said mosques were being branded wrongly "as incubators of violent extremism, while the social reality is that they serve as centers of moderation. The bombers were indoctrinated by a subculture outside the mosque."
Two words, Sir Icky: Finsbury Park.
The proposal had been part of the government's anti-terrorist proposals introduced after the July 7 transit attacks in London, in which four suspected suicide bombers killed 52 bus and Underground passengers.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Ok,let's see if I understand the reasoning.
They don't want to shut down Mosques that preach hate,urge violent extremism, and encourage the murder of"Infidels".Because it would piss off Muslims same Muslims who are preaching hate,urging violent extremism, and encouraging the murder of"Infidels".
Man,Mr.Spock would blow a gasket trying to wrap his brain around that logic.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/16/2005 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm not aware of any transit systems ever blown up by Baptists. Did I miss something?
From what I can gather, some Europeans have a wide paranoid streak when it comes to American-style evangelicals. For example, the French anti-cult laws touted to be targeted on Scientology were ALSO intended to be used against evangelicals.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/16/2005 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
Careful, now. Your police might take the same line as the Australian police -- the use of a molotov cocktail by a Muslim is religious expression, while the posession of same by a non-Muslim is a breech of peace.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/16/2005 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
1. Get glass quart bottle (Plastic bottles bounce, do not use)
2. fill with regular gasoline to four inches from the top (Use cheap gas)
3. Cut a cotton rag about 1 foot long and 4 inches wide, (Do not use synthetics, they melt )
4. Stuff heavy duty cotton rag in open mouth of bottle, be sure that rag touches gasoline, stuff tightly at bottle neck to prevent leaks.
5. To Use Properly, light rag, throw at hard surface to shatter bottle.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2005 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nice work RJ.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/16/2005 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
NEWSFLASH:
British dicks go limp in the house of commons.
Multilateral approach sought in dealing with murdering animals who want to cut their throats while they sleep.....Developing
#12
RJ - let me know where I can find the necessary instructions to fashion a decent Cluebat™ too. I fear we're doomed.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/16/2005 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Howard --
1) go to your nearby sports supplies shop, purchase a regulation wood baseball bat(the wood bit is important, so don't forget and buy an aluminum bat instead, ok?)
2) when you get home, dig up the wood engraving kit from the back of the shed. Use a pencil to write out the words "Clue Bat" in large, easy to read letters along the length of the bat. After the wood engraving thingy has properly heated up, use it to engrave the letters written in pencil, working carefully to ensure that no pencil marks can be seen afterward. Make sure to engrave deeply, as cleaning the Clue Bat after use can be a bit messy, and sometimes requires a bit of sanding to get out the worst dents.
#18
Another side of the story, to defend against a "Molotov Coctail"
1, When you see a person light the wick, shoot them.
2, If you don't have a gun, but do have a knife or club, run swiftly toward the wick lighter, and attack.
3, if unarmed RUN, this is a short range weapon, which needs to be used quickly before the wick burns away. GET OUT OF RANGE. (IF THEY RUN AFTER YOU, SO MUCH THE BETTER, ODDS ARE THEY ARE GOING TO GET BURNED THEMSELVES WHILE RUNNING WITH A GAS SOAKED WICK FLAPPING ABOUT.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2005 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Anyone seriously interested in self-defense needs to get a copy of the U. S. Army Training manual TM31-210 available at gunshows, and used to be available by mail from the Pueblo Colorado office of publications (U. S. Government website, use at your own level of paranoia) but a short search didn't find it. Here's one source, Google TM 31-210 to find more sources
A good source of self defense is a snap-stick, this is a spring with several coiled springs inside it that telescopes down to about 6 inches long and an inch in diameter, a flick of the wrist and it snaps out to be a spring loaded hi-tensle steel spring baton about a foot and a half long, bump it against the ground, and it telescopes back to a short pocket fitting spring, not really an offensive weapon because most folks (Except Cops) don't know just what it is.
Live safe, if guns are prohibited, and folks are being arrested for carrying a tree branch you gotta get sneaky.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2005 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Remember THIS when you are engraving your CLUE BATâ¢:
Write backwards, so when the welts show up, the public can read CLUE BAT⢠without having to use a mirror.
We have the same problem with the Saudi-funded mosques of hate and doom in the US as the Brits have. Our leaders have the same milqtoast attitudes. Only difference is the Brits have 'em springing up like daisies, toward critical mass. We are not there yet, but heading there.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/16/2005 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Howard, giving such instructions through Rantburg would get us all in the slammer. However, if you want to come over for a visit, just send me an email. I know a quiet piece of desert where we can practice.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I quote my ESS instructor:
"There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, there are only dangerous men. To a trained professional, even a shoestring is a weapon."
Practicing at home isn't necessarily the route to "trained professional", but it's better than nothing.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I quote my ESS instructor:
"There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, there are only dangerous men. To a trained professional, even a shoestring is a weapon."
Practicing at home isn't necessarily the route to "trained professional", but it's better than nothing.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Howard, I suggest that you send away to Iran for some IEDs. IEDs seem to be more common than glass bottles these days. Just tell them you need IEDs to clear some land for a new Jewish state. I'm sure they'll oblige. They're having a clearance sale on ballots too.
This seems to track reasonably well with our own conclusions at the time - that a lot of it concerning the Chechen, Pakistani, and Iranian stuff was true but that everything he was allowed to say had been pre-scripted by the Uzbek government, hence the references to Islamist involvement in Andijon.
The Russian newspaper Moskovsky novosti recently published an extensive interview with Shuhrat Masirokhunov, identified as the former chief of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan's Counterintelligence Service. Masirokhunov was extradited from Pakistan to Uzbekistan a few months ago. His comments should provide considerable insight into the workings of the IMU.
Masirokhunov stated that in 1998 he attended a training camp for Islamic radicals located near the village of Avtury, Chechnya. Along with some 50 Uzbeks, he studied both religion and military tactics in courses taught by Arabs who spoke good Russian. After his training, Masirokhunov returned to Uzbekistan a year later.
Before departing for Uzbekistan, Masirokhunov was assigned to send money to Chechnya in order to support the Uzbek community in Chechnya. They also considered kidnapping the children of wealthy parents, mainly Jews. However, Masirokhunov said he failed to carry out that mission.
After the terrorist attacks in Tashkent in winter 1999, Masirokhunov had to flee Uzbekistan. He traveled through Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Iran finally reaching the Chor-Aseb camp near Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
Masirokhunov claims that al-Qaeda has no real unified structure; instead, each group of Islamic terrorists acts autonomously. Information and instructions are circulated among the cells via the Internet. "For example, [Abu Musab] al-Zarqari in Iraq. He is called a representative of [Osama] bin Laden, but it is not true; he is on his own. It was not long ago that we got in touch with him and offered help to him, but he refused to accept it. I met with al-Zarqari two years ago," Masirokhunov continued. "There was nothing outstanding about him, and back then I was much higher in our hierarchy."
According to Masirokhunov, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has refashioned itself as the Islamic Movement of Turkistan (IMT) to include not only ethnic groups from all Central Asian republics, but also Uighurs from China. The main IMT camps are still located along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the Hanta-Thal ravine and near the village of Vana. Each camp has about 100 people, mostly from Central Asia, Russia, and some Arabs. Masirokhunov claims that the Pakistani military is not even trying to eliminate the IMT insurgents.
"You know how special operations are conducted against the militants in Pakistan? They encircle us and it looks like there is no escape for us, but Pakistani soldiers show us where to go: âThere, there, go there, leave, it is clear there!' If Pakistan starts fighting against us, the whole country will explode, because people in Pakistan sympathize with us. That is why they pretend to help America, but in fact they are helping us. Where does bin Laden live? In Pakistan. And they cannot get him? Of course, they can," Masirokhunov told the paper (Moskovsky novosti, November 25-December 1).
There is little doubt that at least part of the information Masirokhunov provided is true. The information about Uzbeks training in camps in Chechnya, as well as about Chechen instructors training IMU militants in the mountains of Tajikistan, has been mentioned many times in the Russian press (e.g., Nezavisimaya gazeta, November 16, 2000; Novye izvestiya, October 21, 2003).
However, many independent analysts find the interview suspect. "One cannot take seriously an âinterview' with the âmain counterintelligence spy' published in Moskovsky novosti for several reasons," writes Arkady Dubnov of Vremya novosti. "The main reason is obvious. One cannot trust any words ascribed to someone who is in an Uzbek jail. One can see that the words are not in line with reality from watching the TV reports about the Tashkent trial of people accused of the Andijan events. The first proceedings of the trial have recently ended. One can simply imagine how Uzbek prison guards extracted similarly profound and memorized testimonies from the accused in that case" (www.fergana.ru, November 28).
Dubnov also pointed out some apparent errors in the Moskovsky novosti interview. For example, Masirokhunov claims that he spent seven years in Afghanistan. But, according to Dubnov, "Masirokhunov fled from Uzbekistan in winter 1999, and Pakistan extradited him in 2005; a simple calculation shows the number to be six." Dubnov also points out that people who know the situation in Uzbekistan considered Masirokhunov's statement that he had transferred several thousand dollars to Uzbekistan through Western Union to be absurd. According to journalists, sending such money to Uzbekistan on a regular basis is simply fantasy.
"There is not any sense in analyzing this âinterview',' Dubnov declared. "It is a short list of what information the Uzbek Secret Service possesses about activities of the international terrorist network and that they permitted to be published. And publishing the interview is an ordinary, so-called âactive measure' conducted under the brand of a formerly respectable newspaper."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 10:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) said more than 300 militants were destroyed when resisting arrest in Chechnya this year, including their leaders Maskhadov, Avdorkhanov, Daudov and Chitigov.
Al Qaeda representatives in the North Caucasus Abu-Dzeit, Abu Omar, Abu Jarah, Jaber and organizers of underground extremist groups operating in various parts of the region - Abubakarov, Debeshev, Madayev, Tambulatov and Eskiyev - have also been destroyed, FSB director Nikolai Patrushev said at a meeting with media representatives on Friday.
In Dagestan, law-enforcement neutralized gang leaders Makasharipov and Ismailov.
"We've established that some gang leaders, such as Abu Havs' deputy Jaber - involved in terrorist attacks on the Untied States on September 11 - and Abu Dzeit, involved in the Beslan hostage-taking raid and Abu Omar, who helped al Qaeda leaders in Iraq, received money from abroad," Patrushev said.
In November, authorities in Chechnya talked so-called brigadier Khachukayev into laying down arms. Khachukayev urged other militants operating in the North Caucasus to surrender, according to the FSB director.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 10:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Probably an accident THIS time, but a warning.
Blast at Russian nuclear plant kills one
IRINA TITOVA Associated Press
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - An explosion at a Russian nuclear power plant complex killed one worker and badly hurt two others, but Russia's nuclear agency said Friday no reactors were affected.
The Rosenergoatom agency said radiation levels remained normal as the reactor in that part of the Leningrad nuclear plant was undergoing repairs and was not in operation. But Thursday's blast threw a spotlight on what environmentalists called uncontrolled operations at Russian nuclear sites.
The blast happened in a smelter at the plant in the closed nuclear town of Sosnovy Bor, 50 miles west of the northern city of St. Petersburg. The smelter is operated by Ekomet-S, a company reprocessing scrap metal.
...
A 33-year-old worker died of his injuries Friday morning, and two others were injured, Yuri Lameko, chief doctor of the Sosnovy Bor hospital, told the AP.
"There were no violations of safety levels and operating conditions of the energy units of the Leningrad nuclear plant," Rosenergoatom said in a statement.
...
He said this was the second accident to occur at Ekomet-S. The first happened in summer 2003, injuring some workers.
In March 1992, an accident at the Sosnovy Bor plant caused radioactive gases and iodine to be leaked into the air, according to nuclear watchdog groups.
...
In an unrelated development, Chechen prosecutors said they have opened a criminal investigation into the improper storage of radioactive waste by a state-owned company,
Prosecutors said a "catastrophic radioactivity situation" had developed at the Grozny Chemical Factory in the breakaway province in southern Russia. Grozny is Chechnya's capital.
Radiation levels at one storage center at the plant are 58,000 times higher than normal, the Russian Prosecutor General's office said Friday....
#1
"The blast happened in a smelter at the plant"
A smelter is a peripheral operation, not a part of the power plant. So the blast was not "at" the plant as the "China Syndrome" headline writers infer. This was no TMI.
#3
They were smelting scrap metal, an explosive operation if there ever was one. All kinds of things get mixed in with the scrap. Everything has to be strictly controlled, or you get a splashback. Nasty!
My dad's brother was burned over 80% of his body when he was caught in a smelter splashback at the steel mill in Houston where he worked. It took him nine months to die.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
For the second time in as many months, the House rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with a vote Friday that Democrats said was politically driven and designed by Republicans to limit debate on the war.
In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition. That split underlined divisions within the party over alternatives to President Bush's Iraq war policies.
Among Republicans, 220 supported the proposal, none were opposed and two voted "present," while the House's lone independent voted "no." Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
12/16/2005 15:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq"
How out of touch do you need to be to vote against achieving victory in Iraq? Need to get and save the roll call. This will be great stuff at election time. Just saw a Dem strategist on Fox and she was consumed with BDS. She started out by saying - we need to get the focus off Iraq and focus on other things going wrong in this country. She actually said, "we will take the war to George Bush". The other guest called her on it and she just started to spew BDS venom and was clearly unhappy that Iraq was going so well. They really are in a pathetic disarray.
#2
For the second time in as many months, the House rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with a vote Friday that Democrats said was politically driven and designed by Republicans to limit debate on the war.
Exactly what more is there to debate on Iraq that hasn't already been put forth and discussed?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Apparently there's 108 Dhimmicrats who don't want to pursue victory there whatever it takes. It was worth 1,500 American lives but not 1,501, apparently.
#5
Just saw a Dem strategist on Fox and she was consumed with BDS. She started out by saying - we need to get the focus off Iraq and focus on other things going wrong in this country.
Heh. Good catch; the Donks really do want to get the focus off Iraq-- desperately.
In part that's because they've got an extremely thin foreign-policy bench that doesn't have anything to offer beyond vapid let's-work-together-with-our-allies boilerplate rhetoric. And to the extent that any of them actually have any real solutions in the GWoT, those solutions aren't going to differ materially from what we're doing right now. But most of them don't even have that; they're clueless when it comes to waging a war against Islamic extremism.
Their desire to get the focus off Iraq and the GWoT is also due to their need to appease the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan America-is-always-wrong wing of the Party, on whom they've become excessively dependent for cash.
Over the half-century or so that I've been paying any attention to them, the Democrats have degenerated into a one-trick donkey: the only politics they know anymore is the politics of cultivating bogus "victim" groups and buying the group's votes by handing them government benefits and new "rights" like so much Halloween candy. Parasite Politics is the only politics the Democratic Party knows how to play anymore, and Iraq and the GWoT are distractions from that game. They are no longer the "party of the working man": they're the party of the NON-working man, the party of freeloaders and fuckups.
And they have one more problem: as much as they claim they'd like to "focus on other things going wrong in this country", the plain fact is that there's damn little wrong with it.
And it's driving them stark, raving bugshit.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/16/2005 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
Catchy Phrase Dave! Almost as good as Vampire Vulture Elite which I first saw on The Diplomad earlier this year to describe those UN vampires who descented on the Tsuami victims.
#9
Just saw a Dem strategist on Fox and she was consumed with BDS. She started out by saying - we need to get the focus off Iraq and focus on other things going wrong in this country.
What's going wrong with the country?
Democrats.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/16/2005 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
WaPo titles it "Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances" - rigggght, except for Lieberman, huh, Nan?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.
She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.
Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."
Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.
Pelosi said she had not consulted with Dean or Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) before taking her position. Her action angered some Democrats, who believed it left the party vulnerable to criticism from the Republicans, but cheered the party's antiwar activists who want party leaders to challenge Bush more vigorously on the war.
Meanwhile, House Republicans are planning to seek a vote as early as today on a resolution saying that an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of troops is "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq."
In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress "the most corrupt in history" and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House.
If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina.
Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.
"Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'whining losers people like me,' " she said.
When all you have is hate and obstructionism, regardless of the merits of W's proposals, you're a loser, and the people will recognize that.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 09:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that Iraq is a national issue calling for commitment of national resources and national will. Yeah, other than than, it's pretty much an individual affair.
I don't know what else this crowd of clowns could do to convince me they are unfit to lead this country through difficult times.
#2
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
As long as the underlying desire is for defeat, they won't have any problem with "differing positions".
#3
I love it when you put that picture up. It sends chills down my spine.
Posted by: Howard Dean ||
12/16/2005 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
How is this disarray? Since when do parties announce midterm platforms that cover all national issues?
This isnt disarray, this is the right move. It means theyre not announcing a pro-withdrawl policy as the official Dem position. This lets Hilary, Steny Hoyer, and even Lieberman continue with their more hawkish stances. This is a defeat for the doves.
If it makes you feel better to consider this disarray, go right ahead.
The GOP MAY not face disaster. After all, Cheney might resign, and Bush MIGHT appoint McCain VP. That would wipe away all the Delay mess, all the Bush unpopularity, and would actually make the Dems likely to lose in 2006 and 2008.
#5
Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.
"Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.
Did I miss something? Is Nuancy contributing to or going to be receiving benifits from Social Security? What does she mean "people like me"?
Posted by: Gir ||
12/16/2005 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No liberalhawk,
What it says to me is that those mealy-mouthed s.o.b.'s don't want to even make their position known to their own voters. That way they can play both sides of the field (Hilderbeast). They want to coddle the antiwar crowd while trying at the same time to convince fence riders that they can be tough. It just depends on what disctrict you are in. If it is one with a Dem incumbent, you play the antiwar (or cant win)line. If you are challenging a GOP guy, you play the moderate, and try to convince people you can protect this country. They are so full of shit that they wont even say what they want, because nobody would vote for them then.
#7
So repubs/cons would have the democrats be like themselves by not allowing any dissenting opinions within the ranks in the interest of "unity"? I dont think so.
Obviously a majority of americans disaprove of President Bush handling of Iraq and his job.
All of the major polls show this and yet repubs
stick to a failing policy? More and more congressional repubs up for midterm elections next year are distancing themselves from Bush.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You can talk about dissenting opinions all you want, but if you don't win any elections the whole point of it is kind of lost, isn't it?
#9
I'm historically a Dem, and I'm still marginally more comfortable with their domestic policies than those of the GOP (I'd prefer a genuinely small government party, but you apparently can't get enough votes that way.
The war in Iraq, part of the GWOI (I-fascism) is the most important issue facing this country. If the Dems can't get their act together on this subject, they've demonstrated their unfitness for power.
So you seem to think that the republican hold on congress & the whitehouse is a permanent thing?
Politics in the U.S. tends to happen in cycles,
the american public is very fickle and things could easily change in the dems favor in the future.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
That is unquestionably true, but I don't see the democrats doing anything to capture the vote of the majority of , well, anybody. The are ununified, defeatist, and nihilistic without offering any suggestions for a way to make it better. They just want to bitch and cry, that doesn't win elections. It's not enough to say that G.W. sucks ass. You then have to say how you would do it better, and I just don't hear any of them saying that.
"cut & run", "defeatist" and "artificial timelines that embolden the enemy" are bs repub/con labels try putting on dems/libs for political gain. I think the U.S. public is smarter than that.
Maybe you beleive as most brainwashed Bushites do that the U.S. should stay in Iraq indefintely until Bush vague "victory" is achieved with a uneding open checkbook and U.S. military casualties and deaths.
I as most democrats dont. Iraqis need to start taking over the responsibility for their country and they need to start doing it soon.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Iraqis need to start taking over the responsibility for their country and they need to start doing it soon.
Six months from now an Iraqi unit is in heavy contact with an Al-Qaeda gang, and the US has a squadron of A-10's within range of the fight. Do the A-10's fly in support of the Iraqi unit, or do they stay out of the fight?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/16/2005 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Matt:
Do you believe that the U.S. should be in Iraq
indefinitely?
The answer to your question is obvious, so why
do you ask it?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Hey Left Angle. In case you hadn't noticed Iraq just had a free election (I bet they didn't even have that many dead voters unlike Washington state but I digress...). They are well on their way to a Democratic Government 'by the people'. I know this is bad news to you and the DNC -- but that's life.
And if you would look even a little bit beyond the MSM and DU and read about people who have actually been then (and not just to the Bagdad hotel bar) you might realize that...
We are winning.
And soon, within a few years - once we have WON and the Iraqi are able to provide their own security, we won't be there. Hmm.. we might have a few bases as in Germany, Japan, etc.. but it would be with the permission of the host country.
And by we - I mean the United States and the Colilition (and the Iraqi people) who want a Democratic government in Iraq and not a bunch of murdering thugs or terrorists. I wanted to point that out because I know this isn't necessarily the same side as the DNC in this war.
Check out 'Michael Yon' or '365 and a wakeup' and other sites....
#17
Left Angle, the problem is that the pool of Democrats keeps shrinking, along with the shrinking labour unions, and as individual interest groups become aware of how the Democratic party as a whole is working against their core interests. Think about how the younger generation of Jews prefers Republican support of Israel vs. Democratic support of the Palestinians; African-Americans climbing white collar career ladders realize that attitudes engendered by the existence of affirmative action hinder rather than help their own progress, and notice that those of their childhood circle who didn't apply themselves to their studies now have no careers to advance; Hispanics who are religiously and socially conservative more and more prefer the party which shares their personal values, the one which provides their children more opportunity by mainstreaming them in schools, rather than hindering their future ability to function in the work world by insisting on hobbling them with a bi-lingual education (I watched my children mainstream in the local preschool when we lived in Germany, and it was 6 months of linguistic hell -- the elder could only handle two hours of incomplete understanding before completely melting down -- followed by effortless use of the language until we were transferred to the next country). Finally, the upcoming generation of voters, including the trailing daughters, was fixed philosophically by the experience of 9/11; the thoughtful ones see us at the receiving end of total war on the part of the Islamo-fascists such as Osama bin Ladin's Al Qaeda organization, and the Democratic party bankrupt of ideas on how to respond, those Democratic politicians even willing to look beyond All VietNam, all the time to even understand that this is a war to the knife, regardless of whether we wish to be at war or not. Statistics show that those young people who are not thoughtful about the issues won't vote anyway.
This concerns me, as I firmly believe this country functions best when there is an effective conversation between the two political parties about how best to proceed within the constraints of an agreed-upon reality (eg, the fact that AlQ. attacked NYC and Washington, DC demonstrates that maintaining the status quo in the Middle East is an unacceptable tactic... at which point the question becomes, how best to change the status quo -- do we first remove Saddam Hussein and his fascist Ba'ath Party hoodlums from power because he is actively trying to control his neighbors, or do we take out the House of Saud because they are financing radical Islamism thin mosques and schools throughout the world?)
#18
LA: Because you seem to be treating the issue as a yes/no issue, and it isn't. I would phrase the issue as: What degree of military support should the US provide to the fledgling Iraqi republic?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/16/2005 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Oh, and Left Angle, how many of the occupation troops currently in Germany or Japan have been killed by local insurgents in the past, say, two decades? My understanding is that "none" would be a reasonable approximation, and that is what will happen once the Iraqis are busily and happily engaged in self-rule. Which is scaring the hell out of the Muslim bully-boy regimes in the neighborhood. Not to mention being called to account by the American soldiery for the not-as-covert-as-they-thought war they've been waging against Israel since the 1920's.
#20
"The are ununified, defeatist, and nihilistic without offering any suggestions for a way to make it better. They just want to bitch and cry..."
Gosh! That sounds like about 47% of the countries attitude and behavior.
""cut & run", "defeatist" and "artificial timelines that embolden the enemy" are bs repub/con labels try putting on dems/libs for political gain. I think the U.S. public is smarter than that."
Spoken like a true fuzzy thinking liberal. Let's hope you are wrong about that last sentence! BTW, have you been fitted for your burkha yet? Just askin`.
#21
"Left Angle, the problem is that the pool of Democrats keeps shrinking..."
Not only that, the ones who are still in the pool are the ones who drove the others out by peeing in it. Idiots like Left Angle are the reason why, after 31 years, I'm no long a Democrat.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/16/2005 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I posted this because it's sooooo delicious taht teh Dems have to lie and obfuscate about their real intentions and principles to remaina marginally viable opposition. If they really hold their cut and run policy as a principle, at least have the F*&KING COJONES to say so and stick with it. Cowards and liars. Think Joe Lieberman (ex-VP candidate) will be given a prime-time speaking spot in 2008 for the DNC convention? Not a chance....so much for diversity. Remember Casey?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#23
what Frank said.
MOOSE THATS A WINNER!
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/16/2005 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Dem leadership... you know the saying: Lead, follow or get out of the way. PLEASE Nuancy, pick one, then STFU!
P.S. I think it's funny as hell to watch the Dems try to carve out consensus opposition platforms within the democratic framework... you GO girl! Seriously. Just go.
#25
Frank: what I find really mind-blowing about the Donks is that they are not only unable to come up with a coherent position on how to defeat Islamic extremism in the GWoT, these "reality-based" geniuses haven't even been able to articulate any domestic policy initiatives worth looking at.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/16/2005 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#26
wow its so clever when folks call Hillary "hildabeest" - almost as good as the loons who talk about Bushitler or the Chimperor.
Shows theres stupidity all around, I guess.
Of course the Dems cant agree on a position on the WOT. Can the GOP? Some Republicans oppose the Patriot Act, most (including McCain) support it. Most support the McCain amendment, as does the WH, but many oppose it (and some here call McCain filth for it) Most GOP Senators supported the Warner resolution calling for a new strategy - but some - including McCain - thought that was dangerously irresolute. Similarly Dems are divided. BECAUSE this is so important, people are putting policy position ABOVE party lines. And while that may disappoint hardcore partisans, whether here or at Daily Kos, I think its a good thing.
#27
"Not only that, the ones who are still in the pool are the ones who drove the others out by peeing in it. "
Thats why 2006 has so much promise. An increase in Dems in congress will inevitably come in swing districts - which will mean more sane, moderate Dems to dilute the loons. Starting a virtous cycle.
How many people voted for Democrat Senator Kerry
in the last prez election against those who voted for President Bush and what is the percentage in regards to the previous democratic total of V.P.
gore vs bush. did the percentage of democratic votes increase or decrease?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#30
LA, If the Iraqis need to start taking responsibility for their own country soon, how about the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Hatians, and the Kosovars?
#31
LiberalHawk: appreciate your comments. I respectfully point out that in most situations, something beats nothing.
The Dems have been talking about trying to find a common platform and national issues for the mid-term election so that they could replicate what Newt Gingrich did with the 'Contract with America' in 1994. Remember, 50+ seats changed then.
That the Dems can't come with a common statement on the most important issue today says a lot about their ability to nationalize the mid-term election. It all but hands the midterms to the Repubs. Just my $0.02.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/16/2005 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#32
GJ:
Can you be more specific in your question?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Left Angle, I don't have a clue, but I'm sure you can find the answer on Google. To be a part of the Rantburg community you have to do some of the work, too. Certainly Bush won the last election not only by a majority of Electoral College votes, which in our system is all that matters, but also by a majority of the total votes, which doesn't happen nearly as often. However, I had the distinct pleasure of being present while the local leadership of the Jewish community agonized over how to bring the young people back into the Democratic fold, at a coffee following a speech by Senator Kerry's Jewish brother. Did you know that back in the old country (Czechoslovakia) the Kerrys were Jewish? They must've converted to Irish Catholicism on the boat coming over.
Liberalhawk -- the leadership of the American Jewish community is indeed solidly Democratic. It's us youngsters who are supposed to be the followership that aren't. Long term the youngsters always win. And I've got two daughters who read Rantburg. Trailing daughter#1 will vote Republican in the next Presidential election, something I didn't come round to until Bush v. Kerry. Td#2, who was recently bat mitzvahed, thinks Democrats are like Canadians: they can say anything they want, because nothing they say matters. It should be interesting -- td#1's Confirmation class will travel to Washington, DC in February to lobby the Ohio Senators on matters the kids think urgent. I am very much looking forward to hearing which issues they choose, and what they argue for.
#34
Oh, and Left Angle, how many of the occupation troops currently in Germany or Japan have been killed by local insurgents in the past, say, two decades?
TW, I have to say something here. The Baader/Meinhof//Red Army Faction (extreme communist) killed 7 and wounded 31 people during the early 1980's (one of those killed was a friend of mine). There have been Americans killed in Japan, especially Okinawa, by organized crime elements. These murderers are much like the ones in Iraq - either extremist elements or criminals who are equally abhorred by the majority of the locals, but it's still dangerous to wear the US uniform anywhere.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Oh, and Left Angle, how many of the occupation troops currently in Germany or Japan have been killed by local insurgents in the past, say, two decades?
TW, I have to say something here. The Baader/Meinhof//Red Army Faction (extreme communist) killed 7 and wounded 31 people during the early 1980's (one of those killed was a friend of mine). There have been Americans killed in Japan, especially Okinawa, by organized crime elements. These murderers are much like the ones in Iraq - either extremist elements or criminals who are equally abhorred by the majority of the locals, but it's still dangerous to wear the US uniform anywhere.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Now the democrats are trying to make it impossible for the American people to find the truth that the Clinton, rather corrupt Clinton administration had used the IRS to go after political opposition. American voters want to know. Leftists fools want to hide the truth. That kind of politics won't fly here on the net.
It's yet another bad move by bad people, and most of us know all about it.
#37
I'm sorry, libhawk, I didn't read your last comment completely before responding. The Democratic party leadership may be solidly pro-Israel, but lots of the rank and file politicians and party members are not. Which means that long term, if not medium term, the Democratic party will switch sides on that subject.
#39
I yield to your greater knowledge, Old Patriot. Still, not a very effective insurgency, was it -- capable of causing individual grief and anger, but otherwise having no impact. I could live with the Iraqi insurgency becoming equally ineffective, and I don't expect it will take very long.
#40
wxjames, this is on my reading todo list. Publish the Barrett report now. This the kind of political corruption the news media should be pouncing on, but like a certain President lying under oath, it becomes a private matter.
Posted by: ed ||
12/16/2005 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#41
"The Dems have been talking about trying to find a common platform and national issues for the mid-term election so that they could replicate what Newt Gingrich did with the 'Contract with America' in 1994. Remember, 50+ seats changed then.
That the Dems can't come with a common statement on the most important issue today says a lot about their ability to nationalize the mid-term election. It all but hands the midterms to the Repubs. Just my $0.02."
IMHO nationalizing the midterm elections a la Gingrich was a bit of a pipe dream from the start. The issues there were fundamentally economic (the economy still didnt look all that good in '94) and economics was the uniting issue of the GOP. Foreign policy is just farther removed from what congress does, and its been the issue that most divides the Dems, for the last 40 years.
Of course Newt also won in large part to capital hill scandals. If I were top Dem strategist, id play up the current hill scandals, and keep pushing on domestic policy, deficits, etc, and NOT make Iraq central. Making Iraq central is just screwy - A. Cause the Dems are divided on it B. Cause its impossible to tell now what the situation on the ground will be like in Nov 2006 (and the smart dems, like Biden and Clinton, know it will probably be better) C. Cause if youre not gonna call for pullout (which they had better not) what you DO say is gonna be too subtle for sound bytes.
So I still think theyll make a pick up in 2006 - how big it will be i have no idea.
#42
"I'm sorry, libhawk, I didn't read your last comment completely before responding. The Democratic party leadership may be solidly pro-Israel, but lots of the rank and file politicians and party members are not. Which means that long term, if not medium term, the Democratic party will switch sides on that subject."
There were rank and file activists who were anti-Israel back in the 1970's. Somehow by the time such folks reach the House (IF they do) they change. Its not a generational thing as you imply - its a loony activist vs sane party boss thing.
#43
"the leadership of the American Jewish community is indeed solidly Democratic. It's us youngsters who are supposed to be the followership that aren't. Long term the youngsters always win. "
I just dont see that. Yeah american jews are a lot more conservative then they used to be - they used to lean practically socialist, supporting real social change. Now most want moderately free market economics, and a relatively secular approach to social issues. IE Clintonism. See the Dems have moved to the right same as the Jews.
Now IF they GOP was to move back in that direction that would be one thing. McCain, for ex. But a GOP thats Rick Santorum, and Tom Delay ....
#45
The donks are have no rutter and no spine. They will make '06 and '08 a cake walk for the Repubs.
Posted by: Captain America ||
12/16/2005 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#46
LA, If the Iraqis need to start taking responsibility for their own country soon, how about the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Hatians, and the Kosovars?
#32 GJ:
Can you be more specific in your question?
It was a rephrase of your #13. I presume you knew what that meant. Germany, Italy, Japan, Haiti, and Kosovo are countries, or areas, we have conquered militarily and are in various stages of nation building. We still have troops in all of them. If we should leave Iraq after 3 years because it's time for them to start taking responsibility for their own country, and soon, how about these slackers we've been in for 10-60 years?
Which one of those countries attacked the U.S.
on 9-11-01 and which one of them is being debated on as in this site as part of President Bush's War on Terror?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#48
LA, Great logic. Doe this mean the Iraqis no longer need to take responsibility for their own country and soon or that Germany,Japan, Italy, Haiti and Kosovo somehow get a pass?
the question posed is irrevelant to the debate.
President Bush isnt being pressured to get the military out of any of those countries nor is he
losing ground politically because of whats going on in any other country other than Iraq. In which one of his last 4 speeches did he address any of those countries? What country is the central debate in congress going on about. Is it one of those? this is too damn funny.
In other words: STAY ON TOPIC. LOL
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#54
The dolt is today's Rantburg Chew Toy. For now, he's kinda funny...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/16/2005 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#55
the "arguments and talking points" have all been shot down and recycled here so many times they've lost all flavor. I vote for High School wannabe Dem Club President off for Christmas break
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#56
except almost all prominent Dems support Israel.
The Democrats are the party of McKinney. They're the party that passed anti-semitic crap around inside their party headquarters.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/16/2005 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
#57
Left Angle is so far out of his/her league that we need to take up a collection for day care expenses:
#7: "All of the major polls show this and yet repubs stick to a failing policy?""
Policy by poll is so... Clintonesque. Only suited to lowly moral relativists. As for failing, you'd have to ask millions and millions of Iraqi voters about that.
#10: "So you seem to think that the republican hold on congress & the whitehouse is a permanent thing?"
Well, if Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Gore and Kerry are the best you can do -- yes.
#13: "Iraqis need to start taking over the responsibility for their country and they need to start doing it soon."
Where do you get your news? Iraqis approved a constitution and they just voted in large numbers. And haven't you noticed that the Iraqi police are taking heavier losses than we are. It's not because they're killing time.
#29: "How many people voted for Democrat Senator Kerry in the last prez election against those who voted for President Bush and what is the percentage in regards to the previous democratic total of V.P. gore vs bush. did the percentage of democratic votes increase or decrease?"
You're sort of ignoring the big picture: Bush won both times and by a wider margin the second time. Get over it.
#47: "Which one of those countries attacked the U.S. on 9-11-01..."
I take it you wanted to leave history out of this, but no doubt you'll flip any minute now and reference the "Vietnam quagmire."
#52: "the question posed is irrevelant to the debate"
ROTFL! My, that's a convenient way to duck a serious discussion! The troops are still in Germany and South Korea and many other places for good reason, yet your ilk insist that we evacuate Iraq and would then blame Bush for the retreat.
Left Angle can't be Aris -- Aris is arrogant and informed and logical. Left Angle is just arrogant.
#58
don't bother RC. Liberalhawk would rather let the democratic party sew yellow stars on him than he would acknowledge that the left has become dangerously anti-semetic and talks out of both sides of their mouth regarding Israel and the Jews.
There were rank and file activists who were anti-Israel back in the 1970's. Somehow by the time such folks reach the House (IF they do) they change. Its not a generational thing as you imply - its a loony activist vs sane party boss thing.
yeah, that's right liberalhawk. Just the free-spirits of youth. None of it's real. Go put your head back in the sand, because history has shown if you just pretend anti-semitism doesn't exist, it will go away.
The House of Representatives voted to build a wall along the US border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration.
The 260-159 voice vote on an amendment to a bill on illegal immigration "mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border.
"Fencing has been designated in sectors that have the highest number of immigrant deaths, instances of drug smuggling and illegal border crossings," because of the large number of would-be immigrants who die in the desert attempting to cross the US border.
The US border with Canada was not forgotten. The bill "includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border." The US-Mexico border is 3,200 kilometers (2,000 miles) long
Now the Senate needs pressuring
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 13:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Vicente Foxe will now (finally!) start having to fix his economy. His escape valve for the corrupt and criminal Mexican government and their mismanagement of the Mexican economy just got cranked shut a notch.
Seething and eye-rolling by Andy Sullivan to commence in 5 .. 4 .. 3 ..
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 00:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lemme guess - this is one of those things that Dems are going to use in order to try to impeach GWB - the fact that he bent the rules in order to go after terrorists.
#3
The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeus corpus - the dispute at the time was whether the president could do it, when congress was not in session. And when, BTW, there were confederate troops a couple of weeks march from Washington.
Just cause we're at war doesnt mean all law can be tossed aside for the duration. Esp as this is a war, like the cold war, that can go on for decades. Look we passed the Patriot act cause we're at war. We've done some pretty grey area things abroad. Ive been willing to defend alot of that. But at some point there IS a limit. If NSA needed to do warrantless wiretaps domestically, why wasnt this put in the Patriot Act? No time? As someone points out in another post, the Patriot Act was passed years ago - there hasnt been time to propose an amendment? Cmon now.
Yes this is serious. And wont just be Sullivan seething. Im doubt its impeachable - but its yet more stupidity.
#4
" Bush administration lawyers argued that such new laws were unnecessary, because they believed that the Congressional resolution on the campaign against terrorism provided ample authorization, officials said."
Id love to see the legal arguments on that. If so, why was the Patriot act necessary - didnt the resolutions on the WOT imply all those powers too?
"Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds."
So they knew theyd lose, and decided to change the law by executive fiat. Now THATs a good jusitification for doing things. I wonder what y'all would have thought if Bill Clinton had done the same?
"The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said."
Makes no sense. Its legal, of course, to tap phones WITH a warrant. Presumably the terrorists know that, which is why the encrypt their communications, etc. How does knowing that the tapping is done WITHOUT a warrant change anything. Theyre gonna encrypt differently for a warrantless tap than for a tap with a warrant? Could someone explain this for me?
#5
Mark me down as having a hard time figuring out how this harms me or any other American more than it helps. It's inadmissable in court but could help in the WOT. AFAIC they can monitor domestic calls with out a warrant too. They're just tainted evidence.
#6
"The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues."
This piece is so distorted it is funny. Here is the money paragraph. Bush didn't do this in secret, he briefed congressional leaders and notified the judge. If they had a problem with it then, they should have said so.
If they had said don't do it and the administration went ahead anyway, then there would be something to bitch about.
Sorry LH, I just can't get my panties in a bunch over this. This to me represents another example of people in Washington who should go to jail for revealing state secrets as well as a media organ that has no regard whatsoever for the security of this country.
We are at war. The enemy is within our borders. We have to use everything at our disposal to find them before they kill our citizens. Sorry that the NYT either doesn't care or doesn't want us to prevent our citizens being killed, but I do care, and I would be PISSED if our government were NOT doing this.
#7
I would hope the government is monitoring suspect muslims. Doing otherwise is an absolute abdication of the oath to protect this country. When Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubayah were caught, they had a treasure trove of phone and contact info in their laptops. One of those was Lyman Faris. Just think the absolute howls of outrage from those now morally bitching if Lyman Farris did complete his mission to blow up the Brooklyn bridge.
Posted by: ed ||
12/16/2005 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
Senate Democrats say they will filibuster the extension of the USA Patriot Act, which passed the House yesterday on a bipartisan vote, despite some concerns that provisions of the bill trample civil liberties by giving law enforcement too much power. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said he will not demand that his entire caucus support a filibuster but said that he certainly would. "Because of 9/11, we rushed to judgment on a number of provisions in that bill," he said. "We certainly shouldn't do that this time."
"I mean, we need some time to think about it?"
"What've you been doing all the while it's been in effect?"
"Thinking."
"How much more time do you need?"
"Thirty years oughta do it."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
*finger in the wind to see where their deep-principles lie*
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 1:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Harry Reid
inserts his arm up the media's a$$ to see which way the wind blows sh*t flows.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/16/2005 4:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
democrats - flamed out in the sixties. but curiously still walking among us- the living dead.
#5
Yeah, by assisting the murderers of American troops and civilians. Real helpful.
The loathesome filth that is John McCain knows no bounds. He should be in jail or at least in disgraced retirement from politics for his Keating Five antics, to say nothing of betraying the oaths that he had sworn to defend the Constitution with the McCain/Feingold "Use the Constitution for toilet paper" Reichsbill.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/16/2005 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Shit - 53 -> 47 NOT 2/3rds so the Filibuster will run.
#8
The defeat of the Patriot Act was due to the Democratic Party in the United States of America aligning themselves with the Council of Islamic Relations. (CAIR)
#9
Bill Frist voted against the amendment at the last minute when he saw there were not enough votes to pass the Act, to be able bring the Act back up immediately. Otherwise, it would be dead long term.
On 16 December 2005, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign
Military Sale to Pakistan of 115 M109A5 155mm self-propelled howitzers as well as associated
equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $56 million.
The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 115 M109A5 155mm self-propelled
howitzers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation,
personnel training and training equipment, Quality Assurance Team, U. S. Government logistics
personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $56 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by
helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be a key ally in the global war on
terrorism.
Posted by: john ||
12/16/2005 18:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: john ||
12/16/2005 13:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Two minor errors -
"mutual possession of thermonuclear weapons by both Pakistan and India"
Pakistan's nukes are fission only - one of the first Chinese missile capable designs.
India tested a fission weapon in 1974 and various other types in 1998 - Thermonuclear, Fission, low yield using reactor grade plutonium etc.
"Events took a dramatic turn when, in the second half of the 1980s, missteps by India culminated in popular upheaval as a result of tampering in the 1987 state elections. Training, weapons and equipment were increasingly gained in POK, but the movement remained an internal phenomenon until Islamabad moved decisively from 1989 to support rival elements that sought not independence but union with Pakistan."
"Continuous Struggle" - the Biography of Amanullah Khan, one of the founders of the JKLF makes it clear that this is incorrect.
"The ISI first made contact with the JKLF in early 1987 through the organisation's senior leader, Farooq Haider. Haider made a deal with the ISI whereby the JKLF was to bring to POK young Kashmiris willing to fight Indian rule; they would then be given military training and arms by the ISI to start an insurgency in the Valley.
The first batch of eight young fighters from Indian Kashmir were said to have reached POK in February 1988. They were given military training and weapons by the ISI and sent back with instructions not to start anything until they got a green signal from Pakistan"
"Three separatist leaders, Mohammed Afzal, Ghulam Hasan Lone and Ghulam Nabi Bhatt, were called to POK in June 1988. After lengthy deliberations, we asked them to start the insurgency on 13 July, 1988."
The reason for the wait "until they got a green signal from Pakistan" is quite simple.
In February 1988 the Soviets agreed to withdraw from Afghanistan in one year. The ISI needed time to reorient the jihad towards India.
The insurrection had nothing to do with "rigged elections" nor did it suddenly arise from the local population. It was a well planned campaign of "subconventional" warfare using proxies.
As Marks points out, the jihad in J+K cannot be sustained without continous Pakistani support.
Posted by: john ||
12/16/2005 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
THOMAS A. MARKS is the author of Maoist Insurgency Since Vietnam (London, 1996), considered the current standard on the subject of âpeopleâs war.â A former U.S. Government officer who is a member of the editorial board of Small Wars and Insurgencies (London), he has recently served as the Oppenheimer Chair of Warfighting Strategy at the Marine Corps University (Quantico), where he taught âInsurgency and Operational Art.â He is an Adjunct Professor at the U.S. Joint Special Operations University (JSOU, Hurlburt Field, FL) and a consultant for several firms specializing in political risk and personal security, to include RAND, where he is a member of the Insurgency Board. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy, and in his Ph.D. work at the University of Hawaii focused on the relationship between popular upheaval and revolutionary crisis (published as Making Revolution: The Insurgency of the Communist Party of Thailand in Structural Perspective, Bangkok: White Lotus). In recent years, Dr. Marks has, in a variety of publications for a variety of clients, analyzed conflicts as far-flung as those in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Laos, the Philippines, and Northern Ireland. His scholarly and journalistic works number in the hundreds. His latest book is Counter-Revolution in China: Wang Sheng and the Kuomintang (London: Frank Cass, 1997); his latest monograph is Colombian Army Adaptation to FARC Insurgency (Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2002).
Posted by: john ||
12/16/2005 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
downloaded and filed thx.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/16/2005 23:46 Comments ||
Top||
Pakistan's ambassador acknowledged on Thursday that "remnants" of Taliban and al Qaeda militants continue to operate in Afghanistan and his country's border, but insisted they are not resurging significantly.
In an interview with Reuters, Jehangir Karamat said Osama bin Laden has lost effectiveness, that his al Qaeda organization has no overarching leadership capable of directing attacks worldwide and that it would be unwise to become "obsessed" with capturing the Islamist militant who directed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In addition, there are media reports that Pakistan's rugged Waziristan region along the Afghan border may be slipping back into the hands of Taliban and al Qaeda militants, despite the presence of some 60,000 Pakistani troops.
In Afghanistan, "these are dissidents, political outsiders, some remnants of the Taliban on the run who are carrying out these episodic periodic attacks (but it is a) transient tactical phenomenon" that will end when the country stabilizes, Karamat said.
"I think there is no large-scale organized Taliban presence anywhere" in Afghanistan and the overall outlook is "excellent," said Karamat, former chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff and chief of army staff.
As for Waziristan, Karamat played down recent unrest, attributing it largely to "tribal infighting" and the involvement of Taliban and dissidents who prefer an unstable environment in which to traffic narcotics and weapons.
A blast in North Waziristan killed an al Qaeda commander, Abu Hamza Rabia, and four other people on Dec. 3. Authorities in Pakistan say Rabia died when explosives at his hide-out detonated accidentally, but villagers said the blast was caused by a missile from an aircraft, possibly a U.S. drone.
The former U.S. Sept. 11 commission, which wrote a 2004 analysis of what went wrong before and after the 2001 hijacked plane attacks, last month criticized Pakistan for continuing to be a sanctuary and training ground for terrorists.
Karamat said Islamabad was vigorously working to keep the region under control with the border "strongly defended on both sides with no chance of any alien presence there."
Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al Faisal, said last week bin Laden has been marginalized but the failure to capture him enhanced a sense of al Qaeda's invincibility and the group remained capable of launching attacks.
Karamat said he did not know the status of bin Laden -- widely believed hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border -- but "I don't think he's effective (and) I don't think there is an overarching leadership that is directing operations worldwide."
Recent edicts and tapes issued in al Qaeda's name are "a ploy to give an impression that there is overall control, guidance and direction" to the group's activities, he said.
Last week, al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri released a video urging militants to attack oil targets in Muslim states.
Karamat said efforts are still under way to find bin Laden but "we shouldn't be obsessed with that" because it would divert attention from other anti-terror war operations.
He said Pakistan continues to press the Bush administration for the opportunity to negotiate the same kind of civilian nuclear cooperation agreement reached in July with India, even though senior U.S. officials have publicly ruled out this possibility.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 00:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, and oysters grow in the Rocky Mountains. Loathsome Toad.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/16/2005 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
The United States has again warned of plans by Al Qaida to attack Americans in the Middle East.
The State Department has issued a so-called Worldwide Caution that warned of an Al Qaida attack in such regions as Africa , Asia, Europe and the Middle East. The department said its warning was based on information that Al Qaida and aligned groups could be planning assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings and bombings.
The announcement, released on Dec. 13, superseded a similar warning issued on Aug. 2. The worldwide caution was meant to expire on June 12, 2006.
"The Department of State remains concerned about the continued threat of terrorist attacks, demonstrations and other violent actions against U.S. citizens and interests overseas," the announcement said. "Ongoing events in Iraq have resulted in demonstrations and associated violence in several countries. Americans are reminded that demonstrations and rioting can occur with little or no warning."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 00:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
and we actually pay these guys. Can I have a refund?
#2
I understand they are working on a timely warning, something about tall buildings and Commercial aircraft, but the details are not ready for publication yet.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2005 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If you were in north africa or the middle east; when would you not be on guard for al-qaeda???
The UN Security Council was set to agree a six-month extension of the UN investigation of the murder of a Lebanese ex-premier, upping the pressure on Syria, and to authorize helping Lebanon probe recent murders of anti-Syrian politicians. Experts of the 15-member council met early Thursday to haggle over the latest draft submitted by France, the United States and Britain on the mandate of the UN panel probing the murder of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri last February.
In the face of objections from some council members, including Russia and Algeria, the Western co-sponsors Wednesday amended an initial draft that would have broadened the mandate of the Mehlis panel to "include investigations on the terrorist attacks perpetrated in Lebanon since October 1, 2004." Instead the new draft would ask UN chief Kofi Annan in consultations with the commission and the Lebanese government "to present recommendations to expand the mandate of the commission to include investigations of those other attacks," including Monday's car bombing in Beirut which killed prominent lawmaker Gibran Tueni.
The new draft also deleted paragraphs that referred to the Mehlis panel's findings further implicating Syrian officials in Hariri's murder last February. Algeria and Russia appeared keen to avoid giving the impression that, in the absence of any compelling evidence, Syria is responsible for those attacks.
The draft however expresses deep concern at the Mehlis panel's findings that Syria had yet to provide full and unconditional cooperation with the probe as demanded by a council resolution adopted in October. It also calls on the enquiry panel to report to the Security Council on the progress of the investigation every three months.
A day after Iraq held elections largely free of violence, both the U.S. military and Iraqi rebels warned on Friday that the insurgency was far from over.
As a reminder of the threat they pose, insurgents fired mortar rounds in Baghdad after Muslim prayers on Friday, police said. There were no reports of casualties.
"The insurgency is not over," Brigadier General Don Alston, chief of communications for U.S. forces in Iraq, told Reuters.
"Zarqawi is still out there and levels of violence will increase," he said, referring to al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. His group has carried out many of the deadliest attacks over the past two years.
"Whether the levels of violence go back up to where they were before, we'll have to see," Alston said. On Thursday, up to 11 million Iraqis voted in parliamentary elections, streaming to polls even in former insurgent strongholds like Falluja, and in the rebellious city of Ramadi.
Militants mounted only isolated attacks, in stark contrast to the last elections in January, when more than 40 people were killed in a series of suicide bombings.
The high turnout, including Sunni Arabs who have been the bedrock of the insurgency, has generated some optimism that Iraq may have turned a corner, with the ballot box, not roadside bombs or Kalashnikovs, the new weapon of choice.
But U.S. commanders, while buoyed by the successful and peaceful vote, played down such talk, and militants said fighting would not end while U.S. troops remained in Iraq.
"I don't think we've reached a sudden big-bang point in terms of bringing down violence," said a U.S. diplomat in Baghdad. "We still have a long way to go in terms of ... building the Iraqi security forces to the point where they alone can manage the job here."
raq's insurgency is the work of a range of groups, from nationalist rebels opposed to U.S. occupation, to former Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein, and Islamist militants bent on creating a Sunni caliphate in Iraq.
The election appeared to draw some members of those groups, particularly nationalist rebels who form the bulk of the insurgency, into the political process. But others, like Zarqawi, are not about to quit their violent campaigns.
"This period of elections is a period of truce, but that does not mean we will stop our military activities," said a man calling himself Abu Qutada, a member of the Islamic Army in Iraq militant group, which includes former Baathists.
"We want the Americans to know that when armed operations start after the elections, we will take control at any time."
Others indicated that fighting would remain on hold until a new Iraqi government is formed. If that government does not reflect Sunni Arab aspirations, they said, then violence would resume, with U.S. and Iraqi forces both being targeted.
"The results of the election will determine what we do," said Abu Mohammed, an insurgent leader in Salaheddin province.
"If (the government) stays the same, military operations will be increased against U.S. forces, the police and the Iraqi army," he said, referring to the Shi'ite-led government.
"If Allawi wins, operations will be focussed on the Americans only, as the occupiers," he said.
Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi heads an alliance that has a following among secular Sunnis and Shi'ites and is thought to have made gains in the election.
U.S. General George Casey, the overall commander in Iraq, acknowledged on Thursday that even though the election was a success, it had not necessarily taken all U.S. troops any closer to going home, as many in the United States are hoping.
"There is still lots of tough work to do and we should expect the insurgency not just to go away because there were elections," he told Pentagon reporters from Iraq.
Some U.S. troops are due to go home in the coming weeks -- numbers were bolstered from 138,000 to 155,000 ahead of the election and will go back down again now it is over -- but no time has been set for other withdrawals.
The U.S. administration has made clear any pull-out will depend on the ability of Iraqi forces to take on the insurgency themselves. On election day, Iraqi troops showed their ability to maintain order, but there is more to do.
"Yesterday was a challenge, a challenge that was met and the latest in a series of challenges taken on by the Iraqi security forces," said Brigadier General Alston.
"There's no question that that contributes to the body of evidence we are studying," in terms of Iraqi readiness, he said.
"But decisions on U.S. troop levels are going to have to be based on conditions on the ground," he said, while accepting that the election had shown some improvement in those conditions.
"There were some who chose not to fight and to vote instead. That's a clear indication of progress."
Some Sunni Arabs may now follow a "twin-track" strategy, like the "ballot box in one hand, gun in the other" approach of Northern Irish nationalists from the 1970s, using violence and the threat of it to back the demands of their political wing.
Those supporting the political process say that could backfire: "They need to understand that spiking up the violence will actually impede the possibilities of political deal-making," one Western diplomat said. "It will entrench other positions."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 11:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems to me that both us and the insurgents would like to see Allawi win... go figure!
One of the things noted here in the second paragraph is that the attack on Abu Ghraib was an unmitigated disaster for al-Qaeda, as we documented here at Rantburg.
Dozens of al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters who attacked Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison in April planned to knock a hole in the prison wall and topple guard towers with a series of car bombs to free detainees and hit U.S. forces, according to a purported al-Qaeda video.
The April 2 attack on the prison, west of Baghdad, left one attacker dead and more than 40 U.S. soldiers and 13 prisoners wounded. Dozens of militants failed to break in after attacking the facility with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and car bombs.
The eight-minute video, signed by the spokesman of al-Qaeda in Iraq and posted on an Islamic militant Web forum Tuesday, shows a satellite photo of the facility, with U.S. troop positions and "interrogation booths" marked in English, as a voice-over outlines the plans of the attack.
A ticker along the bottom of the well-produced video streamed photos of abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers at the facility, including a famed image of a naked prisoner being dragged on a leash by a female guard. The images of abuse and sexual humiliation at the prison have sparked outrage among Iraqis and across the Arab world since they first emerged in early 2004.
Later in the video, militants are seen firing rockets, and Abu Ghraib is filmed from what appears to be a field some distance away. A large mushroom cloud â the kind raised by vehicle bombs â is seen, as are several plumes of smoke.
Voices resembling those of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden â apparently old speeches from previous statements â play in the background over some of the images. The identity of the voices could not immediately be confirmed.
"This is Abu Ghraib prison, let it speak," says the voice purportedly belonging to al-Zarqawi.
"Defense of the Muslim land begins with fighting on the starting line in Iraq," says the purported voice of bin Laden.
The video's authenticity could not be verified. al-Qaeda in Iraq and other militant groups often put out videos of their attacks as propaganda aimed at drumming up support and encouraging Iraqis and other Arabs to join the insurgency against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Such videos often have old speeches by bin Laden or al-Zarqawi as a soundtrack to inspire followers.
A statement with the Web posting said the video was part of a "full set," still to be released, showing attacks by the "Brigade of Aisha, Mother of the Faithful," a previous unknown cell of al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters.
The voiceover explaining the plans for the attack says it had two aims: "First is to release our brothers from this prison. The second is raise the morale of the mujahedeen across Iraq if God lets us succeed in this operation."
The plan for the attack involved more than 50 fighters assaulting the prison from four sides, he explains. From the south side, fighters were to knock a hole in the wall and "knock down towers" with a truck bomb, then drive an explosives-filled tractor through the hole.
From two other sides, militants would engage the security forces as a distraction. Then, on the northwest side, attackers would break open the wall again with a vehicle bomb, then send two more car bombs through the hole "into the American forces to destroy their headquarters."
The signal to launch the attack was to be a barrage of rockets on Abu Ghraib.
U.S. authorities have not given exact details about what happened in the April 2 attack, so it was not known how closely the attackers stuck to the plan outlined in the video.
But the plan was typical of well-coordinated assaults al-Qaeda has carried out in the past. Several times it has used the technique of breaking through a security wall with one suicide bomber, then driving a second through the hole to attempt to hit the target inside.
The video shows men, said to be the suicide attackers who drove the suicide vehicle bombs, reading the Quran together in a room before the operation.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 10:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd say the only thing they failed to factor in was the .50 cal machine gun. You know , the one that is so powerfull it can drive a car to a stop at over a mile away.
#2
The April 2 attack on the prison, west of Baghdad, left one attacker dead and more than 40 U.S. soldiers and 13 prisoners wounded.
What a huge victory for the muj, except no objectives were accomplished. I am surprised USA Today would be so sloppy or naive to print this, then I see the byline is AP from Cairo. Want to bet the author is named Mohammed from the Muslim Brotherhood? Hell, even the gunsex bunnies admitted 10 dead in their April presss release: âThe results [of the battle]: The martyrs from this holy attack: three martyrs were killed while trying to infiltrate the fortresses of the infidels. In addition, seven martyrs detonated themselves and went to paradiseâmay Allah accept them among his martyrs. Finally, two mujahideen were injured and we ask Allah to help them recover from their wounds.
But then, they also claimed: 2.) A large numberâover 15âof their vehicles, armored cars, and tanks were destroyed, praise be to Allah for his blessing.
3.) Dozens of Americans were killed, praise be to Allah for his blessing.
4.) One Apache helicopter was shot down while desperately trying to rescue their defeated army, praise be to Allah for his blessing.
Thank god during WWII, US "journalists" were smart enough not to have the Nazis writing the news stories. But this is the kind of propaganda that the "news" has devolved into. I just wish those controlling the media could be deported to an islamic country to live out the rest of their short lives as they want ordinary Americans to be subjected to. Fuck 'em, then hang 'em.
By the way, a video of the attack was first released April 2005. Guess the islamists are so hard up they are re-releasing footage of unmitigated disasters to rally their pathetic sympathizers, including those in the press. The dumbasses lost about 40 dead. No figures were given of civilian casualties when the 2 truckbombs detontated in town short of the target. A first hand account: The insurgent force was estimated to be more than 60 members strong. Their attempt to infiltrate the operating base lasted for two hours before they were forced to retreat, but not without suffering at least 50 casualties.
Posted by: ed ||
12/16/2005 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Voices resembling those of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden ... play in the background over some of the images. ... "Defense of the Muslim land begins with fighting on the starting line in Iraq," says the purported voice of bin Laden.
No connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Really? D'you want to argue the point with bin Laden?
#4
From dd- ...three martyrs were killed while trying to infiltrate the fortresses of the infidels. In addition, seven martyrs detonated themselves and went to paradiseâmay Allah accept them among his martyrs.
What? Killed with a gun in your hand isn't an auto ticket to Jihadi Sex Paradise in the Zarq form of the religion? I guess they need to have that separation from the suicide bombers, who get the VIP treatment.
Iraqis elected a representative parliament on Thursday, completing a U.S. timetable to install democracy, but much hard work lies ahead if it is to survive its own bitter divisions to produce stability and prosperity.
Like a prototype aircraft preparing for its maiden flight, the requisite components appear to be in place, with Iraq's various sectarian and ethnic groups sharing in the legislature
-- but structural tensions mean no one can be sure it will fly.
Rebellious Sunni Arabs laid down their arms to vote in the hope of winning concessions in parliament; but disappointment for them -- or other groups -- could bring yet more violence.
"People will have to make compromises," the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told Reuters, noting that weeks of negotiation will begin soon to form a governing coalition.
"There's many other steps to come. It's important to keep up the momentum," said the envoy, who said he will remain ready to play the go-between role he has undertaken so far this year.
A crucial test will be how far Shi'ite Islamists, likely to remain by far the biggest parliamentary group, and the Kurds with whom they allied in this year's interim assembly, will make concessions to Sunnis in negotiations to amend the constitution.
The charter was forced through parliament and ratified by an October referendum despite fierce opposition from Sunnis whose boycott of January's ballot left them few seats in the assembly.
U.S. President George W. Bush has promised Sunnis a review.
"I'm not over-optimistic," said Joost Hilterman of the International Crisis Group in Amman, who follows Iraqi affairs.
"It's going to be very hard to change the constitution.
"Sunnis have supported this not because they are converted to the electoral process but because they hope for influence to roll back what they see as an Iranian advance in Iraq," he said, referring to Tehran's support for fellow Shi'ite clerics.
"And if they don't, they're going to go back to what got them here in the first place, the insurgency. And that's going to make it very difficult for American troops to leave."
Arab Sunni Muslims, a 20-percent minority that dominated under Saddam Hussein, complain that the new constitution's emphasis on regional autonomy within a federal state gives too much power, and control of Iraq's vast oil reserves, to Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite majority in the south.
Another senior Western official working in Baghdad's Green Zone government compound acknowledged rebellious Sunnis would maintain a twin-track approach, keeping violence in reserve:
"There will be people out there who will still be hedging their bets," he said. "The challenge ahead will be to make sure that those who prefer violence get marginalised."
"Compromise is going to be the order of the day."
Only that way would the threat of civil war that is keeping 160,000 U.S., British and other troops in Iraq be averted.
Also critical will be forming a competent, honest administration that can quickly deliver on voters' expectations that security and the economy will improve, Khalilzad and other Western diplomats said. Disappointment is dangerous in Iraq.
First indications of how strong the spirit of compromise is will come in negotiations on forming a government over the coming weeks and, probably, months.
For Rajaa al-Bhayesh, a political scientist at Baghdad's Mustansiriya University, fear of wider civil conflict -- beyond the likely continuation of violence by fringe groups like al Qaeda -- is likely to promote the spirit of compromise.
"There will be compromises and a sharing out of jobs because of the general and security situation," he said.
Having tasted the dominant position of a slim absolute majority in parliament, however, the Shi'ite bloc, which seems likely to have lost ground in relative terms thanks to a big turnout among Sunnis, is unlikely to give up power easily.
But though U.S. officials deny having favourites, analysts see them as keen to rein in the Islamist Alliance, which they criticise for dithering on the economy, favouring ties with U.S. enemies in Iran and alienating Sunnis with rights abuses.
"Since no single party will have a majority there will be a need for a very broad-based coalition," Khalilzad said, in a clear signal Washington expects a more diverse government.
A straw poll through hundreds of interviews by Reuters reporters across Iraq indicated that secular Shi'ite Iyad Allawi had cut into the Islamist vote in the south and Baghdad as well as picking up Sunni votes in the capital and the north.
Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst with the Gulf Research Center, believes U.S. diplomats may try to push for a government under former premier Allawi, with the Kurds and Sunnis, that forces the Shi'ite Islamists to give up some key ministries.
"If there's an (Islamist) government, the U.S. government will stay in a damage limitation strategy," he said. "The Americans will be happy to have Shi'ite participation but not in key administrations ... They don't want to see ... people with strong links to Iran in control of the decision-making process."
Rivals are particularly critical of the present Interior Ministry, which is accused of running militia death squads, and there may be special pressure for a change of leadership there.
"The question is whether the Shi'ite parties will take that lying down," Hilterman said. "There have been hints they will fight ... They need to have a sense of still being in power."
Khalilzad, he said, would have his work cut out mediating any such deal, but with voters expectantly waiting rapid action on improving security and public services speed was important.
"At this very dangerous stage," Hilterman said, such a grand coalition "is maybe going to be the best solution."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 00:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A visit to their website indicates all that the International Crisis Group does is issue press releases that bring a new meaning to the word 'banal'. Their 'analysis' wouldn't good enough to cut it at the Burg nor most other places in the blogosphere.
Iraq is now a democracy and Sunni's demands don't need to be addressed, nor does the constitution need to be changed. All they can expect in a democracy is to be treated as equals and that means equal before the law.
#2
Oooh, justified snobbery -- it makes me feel all warm inside! But then, if Rantburgers didn't have higher standards, we would still be reading the New York Times. ;-)
#3
Sunnis need to get it through their thick-ass skulls, they are a minority. Life is going to be very disappointing for a long time to come. NO more running amok. As for the asswads at reuters, the U.S. constitution took from July 4, 1776 to June 21,1788 to get ratified. So they can stick it up their ass it they don't "bloody well" like it.
#4
I'm routing for the Iraqis but realistically this is still a work in progress.
The Islamists and Baathists will be killing as many people as they can, the militia will be killing people too and the liberals and international press will be hyping every setback and downplaying every achievement.
#5
"â¦completing a U.S. timetable to install democracyâ¦"
The US administration, from the beginning, has pushed to meet the mutually agreed upon timeframe but make no mistake the process has always been âcondition basedâ not âtime basedâ. To characterize the installation of the Iraqi government in terms of a âtimetableâ is an attempt to lend credence for setting a timetable for troop withdrawal.
"Having a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and having a timetable for Iraqi elections have resulted in real political and strategic advantages for the U.S. Having a timetable for the withdrawal of troops should be no different."
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)
#7
Although it is a bit early to begin guessing, I'm still curious as to what Abbas' lagacy will be. While his statecraft appears to be lightyears ahead of Arafat, he still seems pretty ineffectual at resolving any of the most problematic issues, like disarming the various terrorist factions, stemming endemic graft and corruption or (gasp) steering the Palestinian people away from an ingrained tradition of hatred and obsession with death.
It's difficult to imagine him as having been much more than some sort of mortuary director who oversaw the laying out of Yassin and Rantissi for burial along with any dreams of a Palestinain state.
If this weasle does manage to retire to some posh little chateaux in another country, his overall track record will quickly slide into the null effect region. My scorecard currently reads a dismal 3.0 out of 10.0 with markdowns for idiocy and pandering.
RAMALLAH - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas scrambled on Thursday to heal a split in his ruling Fatah party after young dissidents dealt him a serious blow less than six weeks before parliamentary elections.
All the king's horses, and all the king's men ...
Defying Abbas, a younger generation of Fatah leaders led by jailed firebrand Marwan Barghouthi announced on Wednesday night they were running for parliament on a competing ticket, triggering one of the gravest crises in Fatahâs 40-year history.
The official Fatah list presented with Abbasâs approval included Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei, a former Yasser Arafat loyalist. Qorei resigned on Thursday, as required by law for cabinet members running for parliament. There was no immediate word on who would replace him.
The rebels launched what was seen as a bold bid to shake up the partyâs old guard leadership and fend off Hamas, which is contesting its first legislative election on Jan. 25.
Trying to put the jinn back into the bottle ...
Fatah officials began contacts to unify their party, long the dominant force in Palestinian politics. Abbas spoke overnight by phone to Barghouthi, serving five life terms in Israel over militant attacks during the Palestinian uprising, and they agreed to further discussions. Barghouthiâs supporters believe he could be freed in a future peace deal.
âWe will employ every damage-control mechanism to avoid Fatahâs division,â Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said.
About as likely as tickets to the Beatles reunion.
The dissidents, unhappy about not getting enough slots on the Fatah ticket, registered their own list before the Wednesday deadline but insisted they were not quitting Fatah. Fatahâs younger generation has voiced fears that continued domination by the old guard, widely viewed as tainted by corruption and cronyism, will benefit Hamas.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is like trying to shove a noodle up a wildcat's ass. ain't gonna happen without some gun and bomb play.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/16/2005 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Deacon, I'd be willing to try to do it to this wildcat. He's a wuss.
#3
One way they might paper over the split is to place Barghouthi on both the old Fatah list and the new Fatah list.
It probably won't work but it would be consistent with the way Abbas tries to manage things but substituting intentional incompetance for unintentional incompetance.
Government negotiators talking peace with the countryâs largest Muslim rebel group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, on Friday briefed senior security leaders on the progress of the negotiations. This was a government effort to calm down a brewing rift between the military and the MILF.
The military has accused the MILF of violating a four-year-old truce. It claims to have uncovered secret MILF training courses and massive recruitment in at least 8 provinces and towns in the southern Philippines. The rebel group has strongly denied this.
Manilaâs chief peace negotiator Silvestre Afable was in Zamboanga City, where he updated dozens of generals and senior military officials at the Southern Command on the progress of the peace talks with the MILF.
Among those in the conference were Generals Edilberto Adan, Gabriel Habacon, Cardozo Luna, Agustin Demaala, Alexander Aleo, Raymundo Ferrer and Nehemias Pajarito.
Presidential aide Jesus Dureza also attended the closed-door military conference and told reporters that he would update security officials about current development projects in the south.
âI will discuss a lot of things, mostly on the ongoing government development projects and priority programs in the southern Philippines,â said Dureza, who is also the chairman of the Mindanao Development Council.
Maj. Gamal Hayudini, Southern Command spokesman, said the meeting was part of an annual security assessment, where military commanders submit their list of accomplishments.
âThe presence of Afable and Dureza only coincided with the Southern Command conference, and they briefed the military about the progress of the peace talks and development projects in Mindanao,â Hayudini said.
Manila opened peace talks with the MILF in 2001 in an effort to end more than three decades of bloody fighting in Mindanao, but despite a cease-fire, rebel and military forces continue to engage in sporadic armed clashes with both sides accusing each other of violating the fragile truce.
The military insist the rebels have broken the cease-fire accord.
âWe maintain what we say and we have documents to back our reports about the MILF violations of the cease-fire. They continue to recruit and train rebels in Mindanao,â said Col. Domingo Tutaan, the Southern Command chief of staff.
While the military supports the government peace process, it said it would not allow the MILF to use the cease-fire agreements and negotiations to build up its forces.
âWe continue to observe and support the primacy of the peace process, but the military also has to perform its mandate for the conduct of internal security,â said Tutaan.
Presidential Peace Adviser Ramon Santos said there were no indications that the MILF violated the fragile truce agreement.
The MILF has accused the military of scuttling the peace talks now that these are on the final stage.
Adan said intelligence reports suggested that as many as 4,000 were recruited and trained by rebel forces in at least eight provinces and towns across Mindanao.
The MILF training courses included lesson in suicide attack missions, commando and guerrilla tactics and warfare, and weapons and explosives use among others.
Western intelligence has linked the MILF to the Indonesian Jemaah al-Islamiya group and the al-Qaeda terror network of Usama bin Laden.
Adan said, âThere had been decentralized and specialized training activities with the purpose of enhancing the military skills of its members and maintaining their war preparedness.â
He warned the MILF to stop recruiting civilians and training rebels in the strife-torn region. But he did not say if the military would take action to force the rebels to their activities.
âI am warning the MILF that any training activity that is military in nature is considered an offensive action. The Southern Command will not take these violations lightly and will not allow such deceptive strategy to continue,â Adan said.
Many Arab countries and organizations, including the influential Organization of Islamic Conference, Libya and Saudi Arabia as well as the United States strongly support the peace talks.
President George W. Bush offered as much as $30 million in financial assistance to help develop Mindanao the moment the MILF seals a peace accord with the Arroyo government. The money would be used to help the rebels reintegrate to the community.
President Arroyo has recently claimed that 80 percent of the peace talks has been completed and that peace in Mindanao is within reach.
MILF chieftain Murad Ebrahim has said that his group is sincerely pursuing peace in Mindanao.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 11:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only peace the MILF want is the total removal of the Manila government.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/16/2005 14:34 Comments ||
Top||
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa held talks with Syrian President Bashir Al Assad yesterday in an attempt to defuse tension with Lebanon over continuing allegations that Syria was involved in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister. "Our great concern is to keep the relations smooth and strong and to end this tension," Moussa told reporters following his meeting with Bashar.
Mousa said he was encouraged by his talks with Syria's leader but did not elaborate. He added he would be returning to Lebanon for further talks. On Wednesday the Arab League chief met Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in Beirut to discuss the problem. Mousa, who held a separate meeting yesterday with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al Sharaa, said Lebanese-Syrian relations were of great concern to everybody in the Arab world. He said he was not carrying any specific proposals.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
For a minute, I thought I was in agreement with the Greens on this, then I realized Chimpy McHalliburton's Amerikkka would be the next country uninvited from international play, and Israel soon after.
Germany's Green party called Wednesday for Iran to be expelled from next year's World Cup, but world football's ruling body, FIFA, immediately rejected the demand, saying politics had no place in sport.
The Greens proposed the punishment amid outrage over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who this week denied that the Holocaust had happened as described in history books and called for a relocation of Israel. "A country with that sort of president, who drags his country into isolation, has no business at the World Cup," said Angelika Beer, a German Green in the European Parliament, in an interview with RBB radio in Berlin. Volker Beck, the party's federal whip in Berlin, agreed: "We should show Iran that this is not right and that this leads to consequences," he told Netzeitung, a Berlin online newspaper. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Greens co-chairman in the European parliament, called for a review of Iranian participation, saying, "This will get a serious-minded debate going in Iran."
FIFA spokesman Andreas Herren rejected the call. He told Deutsche Presse-Agentur: "As far as FIFA is concerned, the issue doesn't come up. We strictly separate politics from sport." He said Iran had properly qualified for the tournament, which is being hosted by Germany next year. "We always tell politicians to keep out," he said.
#1
then I realized Chimpy McHalliburton's Amerikkka would be the next country uninvited from international play
This is the old "If a tree falls in a forest..." line. I'm sure the regular viewers of Univision might notice, but the rest of us? How about them Colts? It's not really football unless you can hear Joe Theisman's leg bone break all the way up in the stands.
#964 - Jews Turn into Apes and Pigs in an Clay-mation Film for Children on Hizbullah TV
Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - 12/7/2005 - 00:12:14
#963 - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Suggests: Jewish State in Canada or Alaska
Iran Ch.1 - 12/14/2005 - 00:01:41
#962 - Lebanese Students at a Hizbullah TV Symposium: We Should Fight the Jews and Burn Them Like Hitler. Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map
Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - 11/29/2005 - 00:02:03
The reported killing of a senior al Qaeda operative by a CIA-launched missile in Pakistan on Dec. 1 has sparked debate among terrorism experts over the true identity of the target and the accuracy of numerical rankings that the Pentagon and White House have attached to other captured or killed terrorists.
Some say the rankings represent public relations run amok, while others say they prove that the U.S. continues to rely on faulty Pakistani intelligence.
On Dec. 3, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told reporters that Abu Hamza Rabia had been killed in an explosion two days earlier. An aide to Musharraf told reporters that Rabia was "very important in al Qaeda, maybe number three or five" in the terror group's hierarchy. Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao added that Rabia's death was a "big blow to al Qaeda."
Several American news organizations, including the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, then quoted multiple, unnamed U.S. intelligence officials as saying that Rabia was al Qaeda's number-three man, the operational commander or military commander, all terms typically used interchangeably. Headlines around the world trumpeted the death of the "al Qaeda number three man"
Last weekend, Stephen Hadley, national security advisor to President Bush, appeared on CNN and Fox News Sunday, describing Rabia as "the chief operational planner for al Qaeda," who had been "involved in planning attacks against the United States."
But the day before Hadley's appearances, terrorism expert and author Christopher L. Brown was labeling it all a case of mistaken identity. Rabia was wanted for plotting to assassinate Musharraf, Brown said, was probably a local senior member of al Qaeda, but was far from being its military mastermind.
Brown, a researcher with a Washington think tank, has briefed members of Congress and senior administration officials on key threats, and he has prepared testimony and briefing materials for officials at the Department of Defense, State Department, CIA, National Security Council and the White House.
Rabia has never appeared on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" list and no known reward has been posted for his capture, Brown points out.
A LexisNexis database search turns up no news articles written about Rabia prior to his reported killing, except for an Aug. 18, 2004, announcement by the Pakistani government of a reward for his capture and that of six other al Qaeda suspects accused of attempting to assassinate President Musharraf on Dec. 14 and 25, 2003.
The 'real' al Qaeda number three, Brown contends, is Saif al-Adel (also known as Muhammad Ibrahim Makkawi), who was previously reported by numerous independent sources to have become al Qaeda's chief of the military committee (operational commander) following the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March 2003.
Unlike Rabia, al-Adel and his ranking are mentioned in numerous news articles, briefings and even in congressional testimony. On May 20, 2003, Reuters quoted terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna as saying that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's arrest elevated al-Adel because he was "the most competent man" and "extraordinarily bright." Gunaratna also pointed out that as a "highly structured organization," Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda "would have made a point of formally appointing a successor to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."
Saif al-Adel is also still listed on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list with a $5 million reward offered for his apprehension. Al-Adel is suspected of having trained some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist hijackers and has been linked to the Aug. 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. The U.S. has sought al-Adel since his alleged involvement in the training of Somali rebels, who killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Mogadishu in the notorious 'Blackhawk Down' incident in October 1993.
In March of 2005 Jordanian analyst Bassam al-Baddarin wrote of al Qaeda's "2020" plan, which outlined the vision of the "strategic brain" of the group -- Saif al-Adel. The "2020" plan made world headlines.
Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the battle at Tora Bora, some al Qaeda fighters, including al-Adel, were reported to have fled to Iran.
"We began to converge on Iran one after the other," Saif al-Adel recalled in a recent book by an Egyptian journalist. "The fraternal brothers in the peninsula of the Arabs, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates who were outside Afghanistan, had already arrived ... We set up a central leadership and working groups ..."
Brown said Iran's announcement that it "seized" al-Adel in May 2003 was not credible. He pointed to another report in a London Arabic daily newspaper that quoted Iranian sources and indicated that al-Adel and his al Qaeda cohorts left Iran following the May 12, 2003, bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and headed for the triple border area of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In June 2005, the German investigative magazine Cicero, known for its intelligence contacts, reported that about 25 al Qaeda leaders, including al-Adel and three of bin Laden's sons were running terrorist operations from their refuge in Iran, where they were provided safe haven, logistical support and equipment by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Soon after the reports of the CIA missile attack on Abu Hamza Rabia, Iran's top intelligence official announced that "there are no al-Qaeda leaders inside Iran.
"We do have a long border with Afghanistan and when the Americans bombed the country, some people crossed this area, but we extradited them or sent them back," the Iranian official added.
Dan Darling, consultant for the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism, has also asserted that Saif al-Adel is "the real al Qaeda No. 3." And the Israeli intelligence group, DEBKA File, reported that "[Rabia] is not a member of al Qaeda's high command and certainly was not Osama bin Laden's Number Three."
When questioned about Rabia, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told Cybercast News Service that he had never heard of the man.
On Dec. 5, the well-known Indian terrorism expert B. Raman, sent Cybercast News Service an analysis stating that the reported killing of Rabia was "mired in contradictions," including the fact that no body had been recovered. Raman is the former head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing in India's external intelligence agency.
Raman also referenced Abu Faraj al-Libbi, another terrorist previously described by Pakistani intelligence, then U.S. officials, as al Qaeda's third ranking official when he was captured in May of this year. "[W]hile the FBI did not believe that Abu Faraj and Rabia were that highly placed in Al Qaeda, the CIA rated both of them as among the top planners of Al Qaeda." Raman noted.
Raman reported that before the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Rabia was trained by Midhat Mursi (aka Abu Khabab), another Egyptian, in an Afghan camp to do research and development on chemical and biological weapons, particularly toxins. "[This] was not highlighted by the Pakistani authorities in their media briefing," Raman said.
On Dec. 5, the global intelligence firm Stratfor reported that neither Rabia nor Abu Faraj al-Libbi were likely the masterminds Pakistani and U.S. intelligence agencies made them out to be. "It is more likely that these individuals, rather than being third in command of the jihadist network, were high-level leaders involved in day-to-day operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan," the Stratfor report stated.
"The Pakistanis would have an interest in propagating the notion that al Qaeda's third-highest ranking member was killed. By assigning a high value to Rabia, Islamabad can placate Washington by showing progress and cooperation in the war on terrorism," according to Stratfor.
"The Pakistani officials [previously] stated that they were not aware of the involvement of Abu Faraj [al-Libbi] in any act of jihadi terrorism outside the Pakistan-Afghanistan region," Raman noted. "They were unable to explain why they projected him as the international operational head of Al Qaeda when there was no evidence of his role in any terrorist strike outside the Afghanistan-Pakistan region."
What Rabia and al-Libbi have in common is they both targeted Pakistani President Musharraf for assassination, said Brown.
"The truth is Pakistan is yanking our chain on al Qaeda and getting America and the CIA to eliminate threats to their regime," he added. The elimination of lower level leaders or threats to Musharraf is "not necessarily a bad thing," but relying on Pakistani intelligence to rank al Qaeda members "puts us in potential danger."
Saif al-Adel is believed to still be operating today and remains listed on the FBI's list of Most Wanted Terrorists.
When questioned about the doubts raised by terrorism experts, a CIA spokesperson told Cybercast News Service that "these titles are somewhat fluid.
"This is not uncommon to have disagreements over titles. Number three is certainly applicable. It's certainly where we came down on it, but there [are] always disagreements among academics and think tanks. Not necessarily everyone agrees. If it's more comfortable, you can use 'senior' and 'certainly planning operations.'"
When asked whether Rabia had been planning international or local operations, the CIA spokesperson declined comment.
When asked to comment on Saif al-Adel's current status, she also declined comment. "We don't usually comment until after they're gone."
Jean-Charles Brisard disagrees with those who doubt the roles of Rabia and al-Libbi in the al Qaeda hierarchy. Brisard is a well-known terrorism financing investigator and chief investigator in the lawsuit filed by the family members of the victims in the 9/11 attacks. He is also the author of "Zarqawi: the New Face of Al-Qaeda," a book praised for its first-hand information about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terror mastermind in Iraq.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) had two principal lieutenants," Brisard said, "Abu Hamza Rabia for external operations and Abu Faraj al-Libbi for the Pakistani-Afghan operations. This is why I refuted at the time that al Libbi had replaced KSM and played the same role."
Brisard said that based on various intelligence sources with whom he has consulted, Rabia was actually a protege and confidant of the undisputed number two man in al Qaeda -- Ayman al-Zawahiri.
"Zawahiri was the one who insisted in naming [Rabia] as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's deputy," Brisard said. "According to interrogations of al-Libbi, [Rabia] maintained a direct contact with Zawahiri for planning and operations. He was a high value target, a key al Qaeda member and one of the few who interacted between the al Qaeda historical leaders and foreign cells, and surely not someone we can downgrade to a simple 'ground commander.'"
Terrorism expert and author Evan F. Kohlmann, however, believes that the whole Pentagon and White House practice of assigning numeric rankings to terrorists "doesn't make any sense.
"This is the reality. We really don't know who the number three is," said Kohlmann. "Even when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was in charge of al Qaeda's military wing, was he number three in the organization? There's no way to quantify that."
Since Mohammed's capture, al Qaeda's structure has become "more nebulous," Kohlmann asserted. "It's not even clear what the precise role of bin Laden's son is.
"This isn't a Fortune 500 company with clearly defined roles. It's more like the mafia. You shoot up in the organization by violence, by inspiring fear and respect in others," Kohlmann said.
"That's the problem of the numbers game. It's a way to sell a story to media. But people wind up then doubting credible information coming from the military, for example," he added. "This is a PR guy's dream, turned nightmare."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/16/2005 10:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's the difference, they obviously didn't want to lose him or he wouldn't have had access to so many resources to keep him alive as long as he was.
Fuck him, he's dead. Next story.
#3
I don't think the current ranking system is fair. They should include more input from coaches and possibly implement a playoff system. Altrenately the number 10 and above guys should be awarded largechampionship belts like boxing champions get - then there will be less debate after the fact.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/16/2005 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
KABUL - A conference on reconciliation in Afghanistan demanded on Thursday that people involved in rights abuses in the countryâs two decades of war be removed from government and face prosecution.
The British government Thursday dropped a key part of the anti-terrorism legislation proposed after the deadly July 7 suicide bombings on London's transit system, abandoning its effort to let police shut down extremist mosques. 
Senate Democrats say they will filibuster the extension of the USA Patriot Act, which passed the House yesterday on a bipartisan vote, despite some concerns that provisions of the bill trample civil liberties by giving law enforcement too much power. Senate Minority Leader 
The UN Security Council was set to agree a six-month extension of the UN investigation of the murder of a Lebanese ex-premier, upping the pressure on Syria, and to authorize helping Lebanon probe recent murders of anti-Syrian politicians. Experts of the 15-member council met early Thursday to haggle over the latest draft submitted by France, the United States and Britain on the mandate of the UN panel probing the murder of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri last February.
